Slashdot Mirror
ACLU Demands DHS Disclose Its Use of Facial-Recognition Tech (cnet.com)
The American Civil Liberties Union on Wednesday called on the Department of Homeland Security to disclose its use of facial-recognition software. The nonprofit also again pushed for an end of law enforcement's use of the technology. From a report: The ACLU's statements follow reports Tuesday that US Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials met this summer with Amazon. Around that time, the company pitched the agency on potentially using its facial-recognition software, called Rekognition, along with other Amazon products. A handful of US police agencies are already trying out Rekognition as part of their crime-fighting and investigative efforts. The ACLU since May has criticized Amazon's marketing of its facial-recognition software to law enforcement and has asked Congress and the public to debate whether the technology should be used. The nonprofit has argued that facial-recognition technology has the potential of being misused by policing agencies and misidentifying people.
"You have nothing to fear if you have done nothing wrong."
And it will happen. And people will complain. And time will move on. And people will forget and adjust. And the police state will rule. And the United States will need to be nuked.
Why would law enforcement give up the methods and tactics? I bet the terrorist cells would absolutely love that information. So much easier to plan your next attack successfully when you know how to avoid observation and identification.
ACLU's stance is, law-enforcement endangers our civil liberties. Though it certainly might sometimes do that, criminals always do.
Cameras — and the face-recognition software behind them — are no different from a policeman on the corner. The technology just greatly improves on the humans here, and is much cheaper. If it is Ok for a cop to stand there and observe the crowd — memorizing faces and pulling out those, who look like the pictures of the suspects on the "Wanted" list — it is Ok for a computer to do the same.
Indeed, the computer is less likely to engage in any deliberate harassment...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I was a victim of prosecutorial over-reach and what was being done to me was wrong, which my Yale Law School graduate attorney agreed with.
I called the ACLU and they refused to even consider helping. After that I consider them parasitic scum and phonies. I don't give a fuck if you disagree on that, I was there and I saw what the ACLU actually did.
So like I said, FUCK the ACLU.
ACLU's stance is, law-enforcement endangers our civil liberties.
In this case anyway. That sneaky generalisation you snuck in there is sneaky, but not entirely honest.
Though it certainly might sometimes do that, criminals always do.
Eh? You're using that word, but it doesn't mean what you think it means.
Criminals break the law. They don't necessarily take pictures of you then store them for 99 years for possible later use against you, along with your complete identity, travel history, physical characteristics, and whatever else they can get their hands on. The TSA does, down to the book you've been reading on the plane.
And remember that law enforcement has legal power criminals don't have, therefore we hold law enforcement to higher standards of conduct than we hold criminals, or for that matter anyone else. Or at least we used to.
Cameras — and the face-recognition software behind them — are no different from a policeman on the corner. The technology just greatly improves on the humans here, and is much cheaper.
I'd say that is materially different, good sir.
If it is Ok for a cop to stand there and observe the crowd — memorizing faces and pulling out those, who look like the pictures of the suspects on the "Wanted" list — it is Ok for a computer to do the same.
Not necessarily. It's not OK for computers to vote, or arrest you, and for good reason.
Indeed, the computer is less likely to engage in any deliberate harassment...
That's not a given. The thing does what it's told to do. If it's told to engage in deliberate harassment then it will do so. It won't do so of its own volition, but then, it won't not do it of its own volition either. Humans might do both.
My butthoal brings David Boies to the bard,
and your mom, is ah effing tard
and your mom, is ah effing tard.
I could do you but your butt is large!
Cameraâ(TM)s ,license plate itentifiers, and facial scanners are the future of crime fighting. Itâ(TM)s never racial profiling unless of course more of one race commit crimes? Then somehow this is a injustice.
Mi makes the argument that because crime, we need to erode civil liberties. WHAT A FUCKING RETARD. The Founding Fathers would have put a hole through your face with Belgian pistols, Mi.
"Cameras — and the face-recognition software behind them — are no different from a policeman on the corner" YES, THEY ARE MORON. IT'S ENTIRELY DIFFERENT.
Look, the ACLU is desperate to get more (D) votes. DHS deliberately interferes with importing illegals, and therefore is a threat to the ACLU.
Oh, but you say, there's no evidence of illegals voting. Well no shit, you've deliberately destroyed any ability to discover it. We have no idea, which doesn't mean it isn't happening.
ACLU isn't a magical "help all retards out of their legal jam" organization. Sorry YOU FUCKING IDIOT. ACLU doesn't need retard support from you, they'll be fine. So like the cops no doubt told you, SHUT THE FUCK UP MORON.
I'll be so glad when we catch all the terrorist & we can all have our rights back.
Any day now....
Let's vote in all the right people to close and terminate DHS and TSA.
Will be great to find illegal migrants who thought they could stay hidden.
People with fake ID.
People sharing ID.
Illegal migrants trying to get the gov tax payers to pay for their full education using fake ID.
A person supporting banned groups in other nations trying to get in and out of the USA.
People with a criminal biography trying to use a fake ID to hide their criminal past.
Criminals, illegal migrants and people who should not be in the USA long term accessing city/state and federal services.
Illegal migrants using one type of state issued photo ID to create other US ID.
Criminals moving around the USA.
Criminals from other nations who thought they could buy a total new ID in one part of the USA and be safe for decades.
People setting up a tent city. Living long term in a RV on a city street.
People attempting to use fake ID to get many more city/state/federal support services under different names.
Illegal migrants trying to get more city/state/federal support services using fake ID all over the USA.
People working in the USA who did not apply for a work visa.
Criminals using payments and cash under different names all over the USA.
Illegal migrants and criminals trying to access the US banking system in new ways under different ID.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
If nobody tells the police they can't then they'll give themselves the right to do it for this.
The only possible antecedent for "this" is my statement that they can use facial recognition to flag potential matches from their known-felon database much faster than doing it manually. Why don't they already have the right to do this? Why would you tell them they don't?
The Constitution already tells them they don't have the right to do a lot of abusive things with the technology, and there are already laws dealing with other criminal information. It's not like we're on new ground here.
Might as well argue that because I disagree with you I must be a looney
That's not what I said. If you don't know that already, then we clearly don't speak the same language at all.
Well before any action involving those people was taken someone would look at the images and say "no, that really isn't him".
There is no guarantee this actually happens.
Oh for fuck's sake. I don't know what country you live in, but it clearly isn't the US. Nobody is going to waste their time even talking to someone whose name pops out of the facial recognition without looking at the pictures. Why would they? They're going to have a hundred or more flagged images to deal with; they're not going to go out and interview a hundred or more people before taking simple steps to cut the list down a lot.
You seem to think that mindless police are going to go out rounding up every person who's image is flagged as a potential match just for fun. Here's a free clue: they don't need facial recognition if they were going to do that.
That's supposing there is a baby in that bathwater.
Of course there's a baby in the bathwater. Just cutting down the number of potential matches by a factor of, what, tens of thousands, is a HUGE baby in the bathwater. If you don't know what facial recognition is or what it does, please stop yammering about how bad it is.
Let's duke it out and decide whether this is tech we'd like the police to have.
Let's not "duke it out". Let's recognize the argument "this technology might be abused so you cannot have it at all" as the ridiculous nonsense that it is.
Ask them.
In other words, you don't know and cannot come up with a reasonable way they could know. Because you are posting as an AC you accept no responsibility for anything posted as AC, and I understand why you'd want to avoid having to explain such a patently absurd claim.
Yes yes I know you had far too much fun trying to be sarcastic in the 'merkin fashion
I was seriously asking someone who made an outrageous claim to explain why it was true. I gave reasons why it could not be true, but certainly, if an Anonymous Coward said it was possible, then it must be possible. ACs don't lie, do they?
And they break'em too.
Yes, of COURSE some people break the rules. Gee, did anyone say otherwise? You're trying to use a criminal act on the part of a vast minority of people as a reason not to allow the rest of them to use a technology that would make their jobs vastly easier, AND make their communities safer because serious criminals could be caught faster. Wow. Baby and bathwater down the drain, ignore the cries from the infant as it disappears.
Do you also argue that cops not be allowed to have cars to patrol in because they sometimes get in accidents?
The problem is that sort of thing doesn't fly in a functioning democracy,
Why aren't you ranting about fingerprints or driver's license photos while you are at it? DNA is another big one. Gosh, I have a camera in my front window that records people that pass by "in perpetuity", maybe I'm violating someone's rights, too? A "functioning democracy"
i think facial recognition should be used to find exploited kids. if a database of school photos was made then exploited photos could be run through amazons service and the face used to tell which school the kid went to to further follow up and save a child